Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP18-0033
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/18/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/20/2018 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Same comment as previous submittal. "Please indicate location of all existing and/or proposed fire hydrants. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 503 for guidance." |
| 07/11/2018 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Show graphically compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-10.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. The landscape plan submitted does not meet the requirements for the entire site. Review the submittal requirements and include an appropriate landscape plan for review and comments. Street landscape buffer will be required for 27th St. to the north. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 07/13/2018 | EHAMBLI1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP Lead Planner PROJECT: U-Haul Development Package (2nd Review) DP18-0033 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 13, 2018 DUE DATE: July 17, 2018 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is February 11, 2019. 1. 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. 2. 2-06.4.2.B - Provide a brief legal description within the title block on all sheets. The legal description was added on the revised submittal, but must be placed within the title block, not with the location map. 3. 2-06.4.2.C - Provide correct section corners location. The numbers provided are correct, but located on the map incorrectly. They should intersect to the south near Golf Links Rd, not at 29th St. 4. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Correct general note 15. Statement should read Airport Environs Zone, not Environmental. Incorrect statement was previously provided. 5. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide type and dimensional width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for the existing right-of-way for Alvernon Way and 27th St. 6. 2-06.4.9.A - Provide documentation for the lot combination. 7. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Diagonal parking space located on the east side of the site do not meet dimensional requirements as shown. Spaces must be 8'6" and the diagonal spaces are shown at 8'1/2". 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Clarify the dimensions for the parking spaces in the northeast corner of the site. They typical dimensions are listed at 8'6" but the size seems to vary on the plan. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Correct vehicle parking calculations. On-site parking is required only for personal storage areas that do not have direct vehicular access. Calculations should only include the portion of the development that is within an enclosed building. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Clearly identify all accessible vehicle parking space requirements. There is a detail for accessible parking space, but no dimensions for the spaces or the access aisle have been provided. 12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c -Provide dimensions for the required loading spaces. It appears the loading spaces provided do not meet the dimensional requirements for a Type A loading area. The minimum size is 12' by 35'. Show loading space maneuverability on site. 13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Correct short and long-term bicycle parking calculation that includes the number required and provided along with applicable details and show them on site. Personal storage requires 2 short-term bicycle parking spaces and no long-term spaces. 14. 2-06.4.9.O - Provide correct street perimeter yard setbacks. As this site borders on a Major Street and Route the Alvernon Way setback is 21' as measured from the back of existing or future curb. The correct setbacks are based UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2. and Table 6.4.5.C-1. Correct the word "setback" along the 27th St frontage. 15. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the use and height in the proposed footprint of the storage units. Use should be "Personal Storage" on all buildings. The height is missing from the buildings on the south and west portions of the site and must be provided on the site plan. 16. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide width dimensions for all sidewalks on the plan. Sidewalk dimensions have not been provided for the sidewalk on the northeast side of the existing building. It appears vehicle parking will be allowed to overhang sidewalks. Demonstrate on the plan that a minimum 4 ft. sidewalk is maintained. Sidewalk width cannot be verified adjacent to the parking on the northeast portion of the site. If wheel stops are to be used, they must be shown on the site plan. 17. 2-06.4.9.R -Verify and correct all sidewalk dimensions provided. The sidewalks on the south and southeast of the existing building are both dimensioned at 6' but are different sizes on the plan. The 8' sidewalk on the east side of the existing building also appears incorrect. Provide the sidewalk width at the narrowest point on all sidewalks. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly identify the required accessible route from the accessible vehicle parking space to the accessible entrance of the building and to the sidewalk within the right-of-way. The proposed accessible parking spaces do not meet accessibility standards. There must be an accessible pedestrian route from each space to the sidewalk and right-of-way. The accessible space on the west side of the parking lot needs an accessible access lane. As this proposal includes more than the required number of accessible parking spaces, I would suggest locating two accessible parking spaces on either side of the crosswalk entering from the street and striping that crosswalk to serve as an accessible aisle. 19. 2-06.4.9.W - Show the location of all existing and proposed signs on the site. The existing pole sign is not noted on the plan. It is currently located in the middle of the main PAAL. The sign must either be relocated or an alternate vehicle access scenario needs to be provided. 20. General comment: Correct all spelling errors and typos on the plan set. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin, (520) 837-4966 or Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/13/2018 | EHAMBLI1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments. |
| 07/16/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DP18-0033 1) Southern most sidewalk adjacent to building is dimensioned as 6'. The sidewalk just to the east is also dimensioned as 6'. The southern sidewalk is clearly wider. One or both of the dimensions is incorrect. 2) All of the driveways are dimensioned as being 50' wide. Clarify is this is proposed or existing. None of the existing driveways are 50' wide. Dimensions appear to be incorrect. Maximum width allowed is 35'. 3) Site visibility triangle dimensions are not shown correctly. For instance the southern most driveway, the Near side SVT is supposed to be 345' long and has a long side dimension that is only roughly double the PED SVT of 30'. Provide SVT's for all driveways. 4) Provide dimensions for existing side walks in right of way. Minimum existing width is 4'. If existing width is less than 4' sidewalks will need to be widened. 5) Confirm accuracy of all supplied dimensions, it appears that several have been overwritten. 6) Pedestrian access around south-east corner of building appears to be incomplete. Show a connected path around the corner. 7) Provide a drawing scale on each sheet 8) Provide waste stream calculations on plans per TSM section 8-01.8.0 in order to verify that current trash enclosure is adequate for proposed expansion. 9) Sheet 1: Engineering seal is blocked by signature. Revise so that seal is visible below signature 10) AM section 7-01.4.3.B requires 84" of unobstructed vertical clearance for sidewalks or pedestrian areas. Update detail on 1 sheet 3 so that the 7' vertical clearance on the accessible parking sign is to the lowest sign. 11) Provide dimensions of trash enclosure on plans to show that the location of the trash enclosure does not conflict with southernmost portion of the building. 12) Provide a detail or a note on the drawings showing that the proposed new storage buildings are elevated a minimum of 4" above finished grade 13) Previous comment. Page 8 of the hydrology report. Remove reference to the Town of Oro Valley 14) Drainage report is missing the aerial photograph , fema flood map and other items that were previously provided. Revise as needed. Remove responses to comments from Drainage Report. 15) Previous comment, Provide a site map in the drainage report showing the Citation Wash flood hazard and include water surface contours for the Citation Wash on the plans. 16) Per City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual section 10-01.3.2.C. At the intersections of streets with other streets or collector or arterial streets with PAALs/Driveways, the curb lines will be connected with a curve having the minimum radius shown in Figure 6, measured at the face of the curb. 17) Previously supplied development plan had ground surface contours, which were removed in the second submittal. Include the ground surface contours as previously supplied. 18) Add note and indicate on plans stating that all landscaped areas shall be depressed 6" for rain water harvesting and where applicable show on plans how runoff will be directed towards landscape. 19) Additional comments may apply John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 07/17/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Plan Returned for Corrections Notice: DP18-0033Project Description: E SITE - U-HAUL OF ALVERNON HEIGHTS To see reviewer's comments about your plans, please visit https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pro/pdsd/activity_search.You will need to enter the activity number shown above to see comments about the plan. This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Prepare a Comment Response Letter which tells the reviewers what changes have been made to the plan and what comments are addressed. When you have made the necessary corrections to the plans, please resubmit the following items to PDSD Filedrop and the plans will re-enter the 20 working day review cycle:1) Corrected plan set2) Items requested by review staff Please remember to name your files appropriately, for example: third (3rd) submittal,3_plan_set.pdf3_response_letter.pdf Alexandra Hines, AICP Lead Planner at Planning and Development Services, City of Tucson 201 N Stone Ave 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 837-6975 - alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/17/2018 | SVALENZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |